October 10, 2011

Paul Krugman has a column about how various "plutocrats" are "panicking" about the Occupy Wall Street movement, and I want to focus on the 4th paragraph:

Michael Bloomberg, New York’s mayor and a financial-industry titan in his own right, was a bit more moderate, but still accused the protesters of trying to “take the jobs away from people working in this city,” a statement that bears no resemblance to the movement’s actual goals.

So the "actual goals" — presumably, something along the lines of a better world for everyone — should divert us from noticing the actual effects people are actually causing? Imagine that as a general principle: We should to back off from criticizing people who have good intentions, even when they adopt means that cause collateral damage, even when those means aren't likely to get us to the pretty goals they have in mind.

"What [the protesters are] trying to do is take the jobs away from people working in this city... They're trying to take away the tax base we have because none of this is good for tourism....

"If the jobs they are trying to get rid of in this city — the people that work in finance, which is a big part of our economy — we're not going to have any money to pay our municipal employees or clean the blocks or anything else."

Bloomberg's rhetoric assigns to the protesters the intent to achieve the natural consequences of their actions. Obviously, this rhetoric invites the Krugman response. But I think it's a good rhetorical device. It rips away the vanity of dreamers and demands that we look at real, concrete facts.

Imagine that as a general principle: We should to back off from criticizing people who have good intentions, even when the adopt means that cause collateral damage, even when those means aren't even likely to get us to the pretty goals they have in mind.

These are exactly the people we need to expose and criticize!

This here is a big part of the story of the past 3 or 4 decades. When you combine the "bad" people, of whom there are some, with the well-intentioned do gooders, well, you can really do a lot of damage.

It's why I have mixed feelings about the OWS events. I can agree with some of the complaints, but I'm guessing that the remedies most favored by most of the demonstrators (to the extent they have even formulated them), will make things worse.

Of course the protestors are "trying" to take jobs away from people who work in the city. Bankers are one class they are targeting. But, the protestors are using a scatter gun. Right now, they are hitting multiple targets they will tell you they do not ntend to hit.

But, Krugman knows all this. It just does not fit his partisan narrative.

The powerful leftists have succeeded is doing so and it has been a disaster for our economy. But please! don't judge them. These astroturf "protesters" want more of what the democrat party is promising them. If the democrats can fool enough of the dimwits who do not understand economic reality - maybe Obama can win a 2nd term.

The one thing Krugman is not is a moron. He is quite deft at lying and distorting throught the creative use of statistics and quasi-facts. He can be deconstructed. But it takes more work and eco-knowhow than most Americans have, certainly most liberal Times readers.

Eventually someone’s going to figure out that in an age of telecommuting, it’s no longer necessary to have a centralized financial center located in New York City. As soon as the costs exceed the benefit and some of the major players start to relocate, a physical location for “Wall Street” could become an obsolete concept and NYC (which depends on their tax revenue to survive) is pretty much screwed.

The one semi-coherent complaint the OWS people seem to have is about the "Wall Street bailout," by which I presume they mean TARP.

Here's what Krugman said about TARP on 9/28/08:

I don’t, in the end, have much more to say about the plan. It passes my test of no equity, no deal; that, plus the danger of financial panic if it doesn’t go through, makes it worth passing, though celebration is not in order.

Do the architects of TARP get credit from the OWS mob for "good intentions"?

These OWS fuckwits have no good intentions, unless covetousness, avarice, and sloth are now virtues.

Krugman was a member of Journolist. There is no reason to believe that the highly successful Journolist is defunct, rather it probably morphed into a much more secure closely held cabal. So when Krugman writes about OWS movement's "actual goals" he may know what he is talking about.

NY Mayor Mike Bloomberg's live in significant other, Diana L. Taylor, is on the Board of Directors of Brookfield Office Properties, the owner of Zuccotti Park, OWS's home base.

Brookfield Offce Properties, owner of Zuccotti Park, is part of a much larger corporation which just got a $168 million dollar loan from the Obama administration a few days before the occupation started.

"So they are in favor of open borders, presumably so that exotic Third World peasants can perform the labor to which they are noticeably averse. Of the 13 items on that "proposed list of demands," Demand Four calls for "free college education," and Demand Eleven returns to the theme, demanding debt forgiveness for all existing student loans. I yield to no one in my general antipathy to the racket that is American college education, but it's difficult to see why this is the fault of the mustache-twirling robber barons who head up Global MegaCorp. Inc. One sympathizes, of course. It can't be easy finding yourself saddled with a six-figure debt and nothing to show for it but some watery bromides from the "Transgender and Colonialism" class. Americans collectively have north of a trillion dollars in personal college debt. Say what you like about Enron and, er, Solyndra and all those other evil corporations, but they didn't relieve you of a quarter-mil in exchange for a Master's in Maya Angelou. So why not try occupying the Dean's office at Shakedown U?"

Imagine that as a general principle: We should to back off from criticizing people who have good intentions, even when the adopt means that cause collateral damage, even when those means aren't likely to get us to the pretty goals they have in mind.

Unfortunately, we don't have to imagine this general principle. It pervades the left.

The cliched defense of every leftist economic program is that it hasn't really been tried yet.

Krugman is an example of the leader who is both stupid and industrious; these are dangerous to the enterprise and must be removed immediately.

Stupid does not mean he is not intelligent, for clearly he has great intellect. But the conclusions he draws have become increasingly stupid. He fails to see what is right in front of him, he cannot admit he has been painfully wrong thus far.

Raise taxes on the wealthy, control speculation (ie, the shekelsmeisters earning millions by trading gold, oil ,stocks, etc), student loan reform , free college education, demands for work--rather specific, reasonable demands. That some protesters have tats and are a bit grungy --Nixonites said the same about hippies.

The Nobel Prize committee passed up an opportunity to award another prize to someone who's anti-civilization and anti-west? Oh, yeah, I forgot. They already gave this clown one. Still, they could have given Krugman another one. Maybe the one for literature...for something he's going to write.

If these people had good jobs, I rather doubt they'd be protesting. Therein lies the problem.

How do you apply that logic to the tea party protests in 2009 and 2010? Those people were employed and made time to go to protests for something they believed strongly in. Most I know took time off to do so.

That the protest is dominated by Internet savvy youths exploiting social media is frequently mentioned. But what is not mentioned is the fact that the protesters are overwhelmingly college students, or recent graduates who still haven’t found jobs. They aren’t just any college students, but the stereotypical sort that you might expect to be involved in campus activism, such as graduate students in “Gender Studies.” I found nobody with engineering or science degrees, but many from arts and acting colleges. After talking with one guy for a while about unemployment and his difficult in finding a job after college, I found out that he was a “poet.” I’m not sure he understood that employers aren’t looking to hire poets. The only person I met that had a political science degree was one of the police officers “keeping the peace.”

The protesters are also predominantly white with blacks underrepresented. On the flip side, blacks are over-represented in the police force. The protesters often compare themselves to the Civil Rights Movement, but the photographs of the recent arrests often show black policemen arresting white protesters. I don’t know if this is a vindication of the Civil Rights Movement or if there is still more work to go, to get the blacks better ensconced in middle-class American to send their kids off to college with that combination of privilege and entitlement that turns them into protesters.

I think the contrast between the Occupy movement and the Tea Party movement is a good demonstration of the argument that the left is holding its claim to the title of "stupid party" firmly in its grasp. It may be generations before the right can challenge to regain the title.

Both of these movements are protest movements grown out of a reaction to the crash of 2008, the subsequent bailouts, and the lingering bad economy. Neither of them started out with anything more than disgust. But the Tea Party has boiled down to a push for smaller government with smaller budgets and less crony capitalism. We will see if this desire survives them actually gaining power. (It never has before.) Agree or disagree there is still a coherent common message.

But it's hard to see a coherent message emerging from the Occupy movement. There is clearly a desire for a big, powerful government to come in and save the day, but it's so sad that those pesky Republicans get a chance to vote. There's no real stomach for socialism or any other form of tyranny. (I think primarily because it sounds like such an awful lot of work.) People like Krugman would be happy to do the work. (I have no problem imagining him working for Stalin.) But I'm not sure the Occupy crowd likes the Krugmans of the world any more than the Tea Party likes Bush and Romney. In the end I don't see Occupy getting rid of the Anarchists for Big Government label.

1. How high do taxes on the wealthy go? These people cannot say; they just know, somehow, that the wealthy are not paying their "fair share." Evidence from countries that purport to soak the rich, where only salarymen subject to withholding really pay anything, is unknown to these people.

2. Trading in currency, commodities, etc., is something anyone with internet access can do. It's just that it's not a good idea for most people to try it; it's a very high-risk gamble against smart and hyper-hard-working traders.

3. Europeans I know who study in the US are amazed at how much more attention they get from their profs here. "Free" universities operate like most other government agencies. Also, the system we have now actually soaks the rich far more than a "free" system would, because only the well-off pay full tuition. The effective tax rate levied by universities is very, very steeply "progressive."

4. Who are they demanding to be employed by, and at what wage? Why aren't firms hiring at the normal rate? Why is this "recovery", fwiw, a jobless one? The answers to these questions aren't to be found on Wall Street, but on Pennsylvania Ave.

"Imagine that as a general principle: We should to back off from criticizing people who have good intentions, even when they adopt means that cause collateral damage, even when those means aren't likely to get us to the pretty goals they have in mind."

I doubt it occurs to you but THAT IS LIBERALISM...every program well mentioned, all disastrous results...but don't criticize!!! Take your vote for obama (SCOAMF)...same deal

Let us accept your premises and arguments, and hold the protesters to account.

Then, having restored the preexisiting state, what about "Wall Street"? Are those "victims" of the mob mentality of Occupy Wall Street, doing good? Or, are their actions, even, neutral for 99% of the American populace. For Mayor Bloomberg, Kay Kelly and the moguls of financial engerineering whose livehoods are directly tied to the continuation of the current corruption, the answer is self evident.

For the rest of us, we know what you are, we know what you want, and we know how this will end.

People who pursue unrealistic dreams because they bear so much guilt? People who would like the US to be a 'great experiment'? People who haven't the slightest clue as to how the bulk of US citizens think and feel?

The phrase "they know just enough to be dangerous" comes to mind for these partially educated white kids. They are the perfectly malleable medium for handlers seeking a publishable spectacle. Well, almost perfect. More black kids would help, apparently:

"There's a core of people--the media and press team--who are doing a lot of the organising and shaping the public image. . . . We tried to talk to one of the media folks about the problem of there not being people of colour, and the problem of people of colour not necessarily feeling comfortable participating, and there was resistance on their part to acknowledge that." h/t Taranto

Before you lapse back into Anti-Semitic, Spanglish let’s addressRaise taxes on the wealthy1) They make jobs2) They pay the majority of taxes, NOWPlease explain how taking money from folks who create jobs makes sense, in a time of 9-plus% unemployment.control speculation (ie, the shekelsmeisters earning millions by trading gold, oil ,stocks, etcWhy, these people match demand and supply. Not enough oil, “Speculators” drive up the price, thereby making investment in oil production profitable-assuming your Government doesn’t hate (with a passion) Fossil Fuels. Government debasing it’s currency, “speculators” drive up the price of gold and precious metals, stimulating greater production. student loan reformIf, by reform you mean elimination of the US Government involvement then yes, wholeheartedly….IF by reform you mean more money for “Madonna Studies” no thanks, we’ve got enough smelly hippies on the streets as it is. free college educationNews Flash: NOTHING IS FREE….you mean you want ME to pay for YOUR college. Here’s an idea, pay for your own college.demands for work--rather specific, reasonable demands

What demands for work. Point out one demand for work…they want debt forgiveness (for the hippies already with the Madonna Studies Degree) and “Free College” for those still attempting to get a “Madonna Studies Degree”. They aren’t asking for work…I guess they are demanding we spend USD 2,000,000,000,000 we don’t have on “infrastructure” and “environmental remediation”, but it’s obvious that the Madonna Studies Majors aren’t going to be building the bridges or draining the swamps, or REBUILDING the swamps….

Maybe back to at least Reagan levels-- 50% or so--,since they're still at historic lows after BushCo--a point teabugs forget routinely.

Capital gains in particular--where a few wealthy investors increas their fortunes merely by buying gold or oil futures. You don't sound like you know much about the markets--it's not for the working/middle class. It's a casino catering to the very wealthy--Bloombergs. No wonder El Puerco de NY's upset. The protesters might like cut into his million+-a-month stock/futures earnings or something.

aside from 60grittttt wandering even further off the the off-meds reservation, the commentator contingent on this blog seems to have moved a bit farther to the right over the past 5-6 months....nice to see you all enjoying each other's company and borrowing from each other's limited resources.

That's something I would like addressed. We heard constantly about how white the Tea Party rallies and protests were. It was characterized as an indictment and supposed buttress to the left's cries of racism.

"... If these people had good jobs, I rather doubt they'd be protesting. Therein lies the problem..."

What's the definition of a good job? Cause if its one that pays a high salary, liberals tend to eschew those types of businesses since in order to pay high salaries, one has to make high profits and if people before profits is the rallying cry, well, there you have it.

Oil companies, drug companies and financial services tend to pay quite well yet are consistenly demonized by the left.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)You don't sound like you know much about the markets--it's not for the working/middle class

CalPERS and 401(k)’s and Roth IRA’s…no benefit to the Middle Classes at all…and the matching of capital needs of employers with financiers, no benefit to the workers or middle managers and their families at all…Sure ChipS doesn’t know much about markets…Pot meet Kettle…BTW, how’s the power-lifting going? Got anyone to eve comment on your blog or have you just given up on that endeavour?

Oil companies, drug companies and financial services tend to pay quite well yet are consistenly demonized by the left.

The last time I saw someone do one of those write-ups where they take all the hours, jobs, expertise of a stay-home mom and add it up, it worked out to the equivalent of a fairly nice gig as well, but this too is another career demonized by the left.

Dissatisfaction with the government, which is I think congruent with the OWS protests. At some point there will be a person who can neatly bridge the gap between what the TEA partiers complain about and what the OWS people complain about, and they will do well at the ballot box, perhaps. Populism will return, briefly. How long until it too is corrupted by DC politics.

Government for the people doesn't quite mean what it used to mean. Could be worse though -- I could be also be an Atlanta Falcons fan.

I'm confident that Krugman donates all his pay from Princeton and the NYT, plus royalties from his books, plus the cash from his Nobel Prize, to a slew of worthy causes, keeping only enough for him and his wife to subsist at a minimal level of comfort.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)At some point there will be a person who can neatly bridge the gap between what the TEA partiers complain about and what the OWS people complain about, and they will do well at the ballot box, perhaps

What bridging, as Steyn says, these are anarchists for Big Government, the TEA Party is about a SMALLER government….

"So the "actual goals" — presumably, something along the lines of a better world for everyone — should divert us from noticing the actual effects people are actually causing? Imagine that as a general principle:"

You don't have to imagine it.

Ideological "progressives" or "liberals" in the American sense live it. You can talk to them, read their opinions, etc. The only thing you can't hope to do is reason with them.

Joejoe the Madoffian--maybe provide the demographics on the protesters' educational/social backgrounds instead of just Limblowing. Were US colleges inexpensive or free instead of financial rackets they wouldn't have wouldn't have the massive debts to pay off.

You're wrong on trading as usual as well. Brokers and traders don't do anything except arrange deals--and most have all the cutting edge stocks/futures warez, so they just follow a chart. Even a dumbass like you could probably do it, Jo jo. Many wealthy investors do the trades themselves without brokers. Keynes himself was not supportive of the stocks/futures markets--what did he call them Snap, crackle pop or something--a game that makes millions for the plutocrats.

Many of the complaints by the OWS/99% folks have to do with ridiculous college debt. And it is a scam they should be upset about- but one that they willfully walked into too.

Part of this is the result of unintended consequences of the non-dischargabilty of college loan debt. Since the loan will always be repaid, the lenders don't particularly care what kind of earnings a particular degree can fetch. So loans for an engineering degree are equal in lenders eyes to loans for art history- or any of the more ridiculous programs out there.

If the lenders had to look at the realistic potential earnings for a degree because bankruptcy is an option for the borrower, they wouldn't be lending so freely. And people averse to actual work couldn't get by with wasting time and resources on subject matter that the market doesn't value.

HDHouse said... aside from 60grittttt wandering even further off the the off-meds reservation, the commentator contingent on this blog seems to have moved a bit farther to the right over the past 5-6 months....nice to see you all enjoying each other's company and borrowing from each other's limited resources.

keep it up. Ann's making good money off you.

LOL. Ann provides a service that many of us are quite happy to help support. This is the essence of capitalism and free markets and creating jobs. Offering goods or services that others want or need. Then engaging in a voluntary transaction. Sorry, way too complicated for House.

Joejoe the dyslexic--read the sentence again. Reagan era tax rate was 50% until 86. Yes a drop from Carter and Nixon, but that wasn't the point was it ,puerco. TPers routinely insist Reagan was great, yet taxes were 10% higher then than now.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Were US colleges affordable instead of racket they wouldn't have wouldn't have the massive debts to pay off

IF you paid for the college education YOURSELF, rather than relying on a Third Party Provider, it would cost less…as it is colleges have NO incentive to control costs. Have you noticed how colleges compare to one another…via “Benchmark Schools”…IF Harvard charges “X” then Brown will charge something “near-X.” Everyone has an incentive for Harvard to charge MORE, because then they can charge more…and so College Administration grows and grows….Tell me “J” do you have lots of cheap food options for lunch? Yes, why, BECAUSE YOU BUY YOUR OWN LUNCH…no one gives you a “free lunch”….

Brokers and traders don't do anything except arrange deals--and most have all the cutting edge stocks/futures ware

You mean deals were a corporation looking to expand, meets up with people who have money to fund the expansion? That kind of “deal?” Man ChipS may not grasp Capitalism, but you are truly clueless….And that software, tell me “J” did anyone make money providing that software…and the lights at the Stock Exchange any money made from providing those, and the janitors that clean the floor after hours, did they benefit?

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)TPers routinely insist Reagan was great, yet taxes were 10% higher then than now

No, tax rates were 28% under Reagan, LOWER than today..depending on when you say “Reagan.” The TEA Party understands that Obama will have to raise ALL OUR TAXES to pay for his programs…so even IF rates remain the same TODAY, we know they must sky-rocket…and what does Obama spend the huge amounts of time talking about, RAISING TAXES….it’s not like it’s a secret.

If the lenders had to look at the realistic potential earnings for a degree because bankruptcy is an option for the borrower, they wouldn't be lending so freely.

Since this would make the debt completely unsecured, I'm quite sure they wouldn't be lending "freely." In fact, they wouldn't be lending to students at all. Students would have to be supported by their parents' wealth, just like in those olden times when college was the province of the upper class.

Basically, I call bullshit on anyone who claims to be from a family of modest means and had to borrow six figures to pay for college. Odds are very high that a lot of that borrowing paid for cars. Or drugs. Almost nobody of modest means is paying full freight at any university.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)And they say bringing back those rates under Reagan equals socialism. And of course, CLASS WARFARE

Yeah, I say let’s return to Ragan…OH you mean the 70% rate right Garage? Let’s raise the taxes on people who pay almost ALL the taxes NOW? And that’s NOT “Class warfare?” It would only be Class Warfare if Obama wanted to put the Kulaks on trial and send them to the camps?

Since this would make the debt completely unsecured, I'm quite sure they wouldn't be lending "freely." In fact, they wouldn't be lending to students at all.

Possibly. One alternative I've heard about is rather than requiring these loans to be repaid at a fixed rate like a normal loan, they'd be repaid at a fixed rate of the borrower's income. So the lender would have to judge whether they're likely to receive 5%, say, of an engineer's salary, or a Starbucks employee's.

So the lender would have to judge whether they're likely to receive 5%, say, of an engineer's salary, or a Starbucks employee's.

How this would play out: Every loan applicant says he or she plans to take a pre-med or engineering curriculum. Every lender knows this can't be true of everybody, so believes nobody. Net effect: same as in my previous comment.

Even if everyone were honest and credible, this would amount to a weird sort of tax surcharge/subsidy scheme in which engineers in effect pay baristas to take humanities classes.

Basically, I call bullshit on anyone who claims to be from a family of modest means and had to borrow six figures to pay for college. Odds are very high that a lot of that borrowing paid for cars. Or drugs. Almost nobody of modest means is paying full freight at any university

Well, it depends on what you mean by "had to". Tuition and board at a middling private liberal arts college like the University of Puget Sound run close to $50K per academic year. And while financial aid is available, it doesn't cover everything so it wouldn't surprise me at all if a fair number of UPS grads had over $100K in student debt.

As for the "had to" part, the people who racked up all that debt getting an English degree or whatever at UPS could have gotten a Bachelor's degree a lot cheaper by going to community college and transferring to say, UW-Tacoma, so you could say they didn't really have to. I don't disagree with that. But trust me, there are a lot of people out there in hock for expensive private school education that really shouldn't be. It's shockingly common among aspirational middle class families.

@Maguro--Part of what I mean by "had to" is that nobody "has to" go to the University of Puget Sound. And, what you said, if they do they certainly don't have to major in something that won't repay the price of UPS.

But more than that, AFAIK the cut-off line for paying full tuition is at a pretty affluent level. There are, I believe, standard guidelines for the amount families are expected to be able to pony up to send Buddy and Sis to college. Financial aid & loan packages are based on that expectation.

I've seen too many college students driving nice cars to put a lot of stock in this whining about student loan debt. Not to say that's definitive, by any means, but it's the basis for my skepticism.

How this would play out: Every loan applicant says he or she plans to take a pre-med or engineering curriculum. Every lender knows this can't be true of everybody, so believes nobody. Net effect: same as in my previous comment.

There are already reporting requirements from the student to the lender as far as grades, no? These would just need to include confirmation that the classes taken meet the declared major requirements. Slightly more complicated maybe, but not insurmountable.

Even if everyone were honest and credible, this would amount to a weird sort of tax surcharge/subsidy scheme in which engineers in effect pay baristas to take humanities classes.

Because the price of humanities degrees would be forced down, I assume you mean. Yes- but note this is already a good outcome. At some point, engineering students would see this subsidy and demand change. Schools that had only engineering & hard science programs could outcompete the universities that offered everything and which subsidized the less valued programs.

I don't understand the mindset of someone who goes into ridiculous debt to go to College. (Invariably, it seems, the stories are about people who went to college on the East Coast). I am grateful that the people of Wisconsin support the UW system, keeping tuition moderately affordable.

The popping Higher Education bubble (that will occur when people see that the cost exceeds greatly the benefit) will be interesting to live through.

'Forgiving' college debt just means that people won't learn from their mistakes. Bad, bad, bad idea.

Joejoe the Kissingerite--that's nearly Adam Smith--didn't you get the labor theory of value like back in Shekels U? Not the sames as Karlo Marx's version, but related--..Traders/brokers/financiers don't produce anything of value, except perhaps a trivial service. They don't grow crops, manufacture autos, or computers, etc. They merely pimp them, or rather ..help the owners increase their wealth via the magic of speculation. Superfluous, like you. And most in the big leagues of trading are the sons of rich daddies as well (ie, ivy league alums ,steinford, jap. execs , etc)--ie ,they started off at the table with a humongous pile of chips..until Farmer Turnipseed, who hasn't a pile at all.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)I don't see how this solves anything. What stops the flunkee from walking away from his debt

What prevents you from walking away from your mortgage? Nothing except a bad credit rating…So you walk, and the NEXT bunch of people get to demonstrate that they have a proficiency in certain areas necessary for “success” in the chosen fields…either NO Calculus scores=no pre-med loan OR no calculus scores=25% higher interest rate….

Schools that had only engineering & hard science programs could outcompete the universities that offered everything and which subsidized the less valued programs.

I don't follow you. The effect of means-tested loan repayment is to subsidize humanities and tax engineering. Stand-along engineering schools would have to lower their tuition in order to compete. Humanities programs would advertise the fact that their graduates hardly have to repay any loan debt at all.

Look at the 99% Tumblr feed. They’re not looking for handouts or redistribution. These folks aren't looking to overthrow capitalism, they want jobs; they want to work. They want to be a part of the capitalist system not be owned by it - the freedom a free market system is supposed to provide, not to be held in bondage to a system in which they have no control. Wall Street and K Street are hoarding, while we fight for the scraps.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)didn't you get the labor theory of value like back in Shekels U? Not the sames as Karlo Marx's version, but related--..Traders/brokers/financiers don't produce anything of value, except perhaps a trivial service

Tell me about their “trivial services” when you apply for a loan, for a car, house or business….not like you’re going to move out of mom’s basement for a while, but there’s some hope that she’ll eventually make you move or start charging you rent….

What prevents you from walking away from your mortgage? Nothing except a bad credit rating

Joe, you know perfectly well that the reason a mortgage market exists is because the loan is secured by the property. Otherwise, people would be very happy to let their credit rating take a hit in exchange for a free house.

You also know that the financial crisis was the result of lots and lots of people walking away from underwater mortgages. So clearly the threat of a bad credit rating is insufficient to deter this.

What you may not know is that federal regulators are now trying to prevent banks from setting their interest rates on new mortgages in a way that reflects people's credit ratings. That's Elizabeth Warren's innovation.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)You also know that the financial crisis was the result of lots and lots of people walking away from underwater mortgages

No the crisis occurred before….however, a third party loan system, market-based IS a better route…it would discount Madonna Studies degrees and rate your “credit-worthiness” to sign up for Pre-Engineer or Pre-Med…and since EVERYONE would do so, under your theory…the rates charged WOULD be high, because suddenly there would be a “Glut” of engineers and doctor’s in the offing…whereas Humanities would be under-served and hence have lower interests…the market stabilizes and corrects.

Well Chip I’m just saying pay your own way to college….Costs have risen because of demand increases, irrespective of return…a Bubble…and the fact that colleges don’t hold costs down…I’m just trying to suggest a loan-based approach that helps bring some market reality to bear….you pay for what you get…a Madonna Studies Degree is worth LESS than an EE Degree…and either you pay less for it or you pay a higher interest rate….You make the point that EVERYONE would sign up for EE/Pre-Med…and so that means a large demand chasing a FINITE supply, and hence very high interest rates or high costs….either way you weed out the Madonna Studies Majors trying to get in on “cheap” loans….

YOu don't know f*ck about economics, do you JoeJoe perp. Or American history (ie,Jefferson's opposition to Hamilton's finance schemes--and Jeff. was no RonPaul as some chi chi lib-ralls and conservatives insist). It's not the loan salesman's decisions anyway, it's the underwriter's henchman. And those of us with a credit union connection don't deal with swine such as you and yr cronies in Bloombergville.

@Joe--There are plenty of incentives right now not to major in "Madonna Studies." They are that you're taking out a non-dischargeable debt and not pursuing a course of study that will enable you to pay it off and still have a decent life.

You think that substituting the lender's judgment about future employment prospects for the borrower's judgment will solve whatever problem it is that we now have. I think that what would happen instead is that there would be an outcry over the unfairness of forcing noble humanities majors to pay high interest rates on their debt while rich doctors and engineers pay low rates. The fact that these rates may have been agreed to at age 18 would simply be proof that evil bankers were preying on unsuspecting young people.

Chip you’re going to have whining from the Madonna Studies Majors, no matter what…that’s what OWS is ALREADY…just make them pay their own freight…either in terms of tuition or interest rate….we ALREADY subsidize the Madonna Studies Majors, because there’s no differential rate for an EE Major or a Madonna Studies Degree…the question is which one do you chose as a BA or which one accepts you into a Graduate Program…my proposal limits the number of Madonna Studies majors to the stupid, the committed or the rich (who can pay their own way or the higher rates)…..

Imagine that as a general principle: We should to back off from criticizing people who have good intentions, even when the adopt means that cause collateral damage, even when those means aren't even likely to get us to the pretty goals they have in mind.

Was that yr major JoeJoe the Randian? With like a minor in white collar crime or something.(--Miss Madonna not exactly too kosher either) No wonder you spend yr days spamming away at Aynhouse from your mom's basement.

Re yr usual overgeneralized brainfarts--let's see the demographics on the protesters educational background,Einstein, or STFU.

It was my understand that for profit schools had to report job placement figures to justify offering programs. Don't state and private colleges have to do the same or can they crank out as many Journalism and English majors as they want?

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Re yr usual overgeneralized brainfarts--let's see the demographics on the protesters educational background,Einstein, or STFU

Gee we know they are overwhelmingly WHITE and of college-age….and they aren’t talking about more money for STEM…but if you have any proof that they AREN’T Madonna Studies Majors taking time off or being unemployed with heavy debt, get back to me. Because all the ones I see sure look like the “Socially Concerned Students (Dimwits) from my College…and I note they want “free college” and “debt forgiveness” hardly hallmarks of folks who have great job prospects from their degrees….

And I have a degree in the Humanities…and luckily I have a job….I don’t say that a Madonna Studies Degree is TOTALLY worthless, but you don’t see me whining about my prospects, I knew it was a relatively worthless degree when I got it….

You think that substituting the lender's judgment about future employment prospects for the borrower's judgment will solve whatever problem it is that we now have.

In other types of loans, such as home mortgages, the loan would happen or not depending on the joint judgment of the borrower and lender. No home lender would shell out $100k for a $10k home. Lenders also consider the borrower's potential to pay. (Fannie and Freddie aside.)

The current set-up for student loans tends to push those considerations aside, because the lender is forced to pay regardless of circumstance.

Occupy Wall Street's most annoying aspects are its incoherence and illogic.

Tea Party want lower taxes and more responsible spending.Anti-war people want the war to end and troops to come home.PETA people want animals to not be killed or kept as pets.Etc.

I may not agree with all of those, but their demands are, at least, coherent, and they are logical on the basis of each group's views.

Occupy Wall Street, on the other hand, makes no sense at all. "We want to destroy corporations to give people jobs!" Huh? "We want more union control and fewer banks so that there will be more jobs!" Excuse me? "We want to destroy the economy to make everyone richer!" What?

This is my generation. This is where Boomers failed. You guys raised entitled, superficial morons. (With some exceptions, of course.)

But really, let's face it. My generation is not one of deep thought and critical thinking. My generation is one that thinks its owed--for, it seems, no reason at all. It's the generation that believes in never-ending amusement as its highest value and being clever as its highest virtue. It makes no difference why you think what you think, only that you think what all the right thinking people think too.

EXACTLY, Chip…because the Fed’s offer “cheap, no strings attached money” we have lots of folks getting Madonna Studies Degrees…again END THE FEDERAL PROGRAM…let people borrow on the earning power of the degree and watch the number of scholarships and cost and loan incentives rapidly reduce the Madonna Studies posse to a minimum, and watch more folks go into Business, STEM or the like…as it is now, you might as well be a Madonna Studies major…

Add in the fact that the Fed’s “juke” up the student loan amount by 3-4% per year irrespective of need and you have a recipe for ever climbing college costs and a over-supply of Madonna Studies majors.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)If the Occupy Wall Street people are pissed about bailouts, why are they on Wall Street? Why aren't they in Washington where the people are who made the bailouts happen

Freeman NYC is a “happenin’ place” DC not so much…and the hot babes and good drugs are in NYC…who wants to hook up with Charlie Rangel? Lastly, you’re using Dead White European Male Logic and Disputation, these are archaic patriarchal, culturally Imperialistic artifacts, that we in the Madonna Studies Area categorically REJECT, in favour of a more holistic, Gaia-centred, Other-Regarding Sense of Understanding and Knowing….*SHEESH* womyn what’s wrong with you?

*WHOA* So should I be concerned about cooling or over-heating? Will there be a UN-sponsored Conference? Will there be lobster? These are the important questions? Can I get a degree or at least a loan for a degree in Excess Mental Heat Capacity and its Effect on Womyn, Gays, Lesbians, Bi-Sexuals, the Trans-Gendered and the Poor? Does the excessive heat loss make me a larger target for zombies? Or Zombie-ALIENS? Man that’s a genre not explored by Hollywood, yet… ATTACK of the Zombie Aliens from Outer Space! Or Bikini Beach Zombie Alien Attack! *WHOA* Again I have got to get these ideas down and a treatment sent off….

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)give 'em a look-over, JoeJoe Nixon---ratty, grungy, not wearing pin stripe suits. Thus their ideas must be all wrong as well

Well it’s true that they are OBVIOUSLY a bunch of dope-smoking, plastic banana good time types, from the their dress alone, BUT their “demands” are incoherent and laughable….so it’s not just the long hair and grungy attire, it’s the STUPIDITY, too….smelly stupidity is worse than well-dressed and well-groomed stupidity J….

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Yes, but manbearpig will decide to go and it will get snowed out

LOL either that or Obama will publicly endorse and visit the conference management company and praise them as the sort of 21st century jobs America needs…and then they’ll go bust the next week….probably with $100 million in US taxpayer loans.

Scottm IF I see, in the Straight to DVD Aisle either ATTACK of the Zombie Aliens from Outer Space! Or Bikini Beach Zombie Alien Attack and your name attached in any way, shape or form, my Lawyer and I will pursue you to H3ll’s gate, itself……

You don't know shit about economics, whether Smith, or Keynes, or the LTV. wow the marginal revolution--you mean the right to rip people off, maybe with some bogus chiropractic gear? You don't know shit about Marshall either. One year of Nursey studies at Casa Grande doesn't mean fock hijo de puta. Buh bye to you, perp.

40,000 nyc households pay for 90 percent of NYC welfare state programs (tax revenues). These are all the people that the OWC are trying to behead, and if they decide to leave NYC, it would become another Detroit, and all those union supporters will suddenly have none of their jobs or salaries paid for. But that is an insignificant detail to OWC and the democraps/socialist (redundant) supporters of this astroturf thuggery.

BTW the NY Working Families Party (oxymoron alert) has been advertising on Craigslist for the past couple of weeks to employ people to protest at OWC events, at the rate of $350-600/week. If that doesn't say authentic movement like the Tea Party then you must be a racist one percenter.BTW the whole 99 percenter is such a travesty of propaganda that republicans should laugh anytime that claim is made. At most these vile excreants represent ten percent of the population (the extremist half of the 20% liberal base)

Mikey Chandala did I say wiki? No. But the wiki has info. AS does the New Advent. Or the Summa itself and other sources--or various NT sections as well. Wasn't referring to you anyway, white collar perp.

So lets summarize...it is OK if the so called Tea Party protests Wall Street but not the current group of "Angry American Voters"? One group is "The American People" while the other group is "that bunch of rag tag hippy lefties"? Both are citizens and taxpayers (OK the unemployables of the Tea Party and the living-in-their-moms-basement hippies might not pay much taxes but at least they can pretend they do for now), both are mad at the "bail out"? Both supposedly want Wall Street to pay up. Or is it that the Tea Party is a shill for the Right and wants to put all the blame on Obama and the Dems and does not really want to reform WS but instead demogoge the issue for political reasons. Now that the left is saying "OK, we agree, no more bailouts, or too big to fail...lets get rid of the fat cat bankers" the Tea Party is in the defend Wall Street camp. Lets see the Reps put their votes where their mouths are....where is that anti-bailout, anti-wall street legislation?

If only it worked that way. Alas, our son who went to the real UW (sorry, Althouse, MadMan, Garage.. I mean of course the West Coast one) cost us the most out-of-pocket. Those who went to private school got more grant aid, enough to make up the difference between the higher tuition vs the state school. The one who went to the highest-priced college--highest list price, that is--ended up costing us the least.

I thought Bloomberg's comments were hilarious - they were so incredibly pedestrian. I thought he was going to start lecturing about eating one's vegetables. Tourism? Christ. Way to turn into a backwater.

A lot of these people are in the "dreamer" category because they are young - that's all. They have their whole lives to be paying back TARP and its beneficiaries and believe me, they will. (I benefitted from TARP indirectly in that I'm a bond holder.)

I also have relatives that were exec engineers working for those who worked those kind of deals for Bechtel and similar in the ROW. Believe me, it's not a deal you should be proud went down in the USA. It Was. A. Bad. Deal. worthy of a Imperial Power bullying and bribing a Banana Republic.

They are incoherent in their response only because it will take them a lifetime to realize how badly they got screwed. Then they can join the Tea Party.

It's frustrating to see both sides (Occupy and Tea Party) being manipulated into falling for the partisan line on this and taking what pleasure they can in belittling the aims of the other.

Go wiki Keynes, Nursy Sorepaw on problems with speculation--ie, the original topic, not your Think and Grow Rich pseudo-economics. ( marginalism's mostly utilitarian hype--google Bentham and dumbass). Marshalll himself was not always ..a gung-ho capitalist (held to interventionism at times) and was aware of labor, unlike you bunko-boy

"Tuition and board at a middling private liberal arts college like the University of Puget Sound run close to $50K per academic year."

This doesn't happen in Canada. Tuition is much cheaper, and students can discharge their loans after 7 years.

If young Americans are truly in this kind of debt, it's not surprising that the US housing market is in trouble. To get the U.S. economy going, the new generation has to be able to buy houses, cars, washing machines, and more.

I don't think it's a good rhetorical device to say that one side *wants* the consequences that the other side thinks will result. I have some really stupid campaign emails from the Democrat here saying that the Tea Party *wants* to destroy America.

I don't see anything good about this tactic.

OTOH, is Bloomberg doing that?

Or is he right to say that the Occupy Wall Street people *want* to put a great big damper on the financial industry? Do they *want* to see some of these companies fold, or at least down-size?

I went to OWS yesterday and I watched and I listened to what they had to say. Today I read the comments here. Your attempts to ridicule them reflect badly on you. Reflect for a moment about how you can make this world a better place.

Raise taxes on the wealthy, control speculation (ie, the shekelsmeisters earning millions by trading gold, oil ,stocks, etc), student loan reform , free college education, demands for work--rather specific, reasonable demands. That some protesters have tats and are a bit grungy --Nixonites said the same about hippies.

J, you need to read the whole list of demands. It included open borders; a minimum wage of $20/hr (apparently whether you work or not, since a guaranteed living wage irrespective of employment was in there too); a couple of trillion dollars of new spending, half of which appeared to go towards dismantling all nuclear and hydroelectric power, with a contradictory demand to get rid of all fossil fuel use as soon as possible; making credit reporting agencies illegal; and my favorite: not forgiveness of student loan debt (Steyn was too kind here), but forgiveness of all debt owed by anyone to anyone on the entire planet. Obviously there must be someone somewhere with the power to command that.

And so on. And on. It's only fair to the rest of the protesters to say that the comments on that piece mostly described it as bollocks on stilts.